How to tame the midrange???

Baffled,

I own TAG McLaren FYI but you can do it GMood's way and since I live near Silver Spring MD, I have no problem coming with a Meridian processor and show you what I'm talking about once you have your My-T "2 channel rig" going.

I'll bring some tissues too.

PS:"or just not that well informed." think you know enough to judge who knows what? :) email me anytime.

An equalizer? That's a drastic solution. I would only consider this if you're willing to kiss off resolution and collapse the soundstage. There is so much to address in this system: cables, room acoustics and speaker placement that could very well resolve or significantly reduce any number of problems identified here.

I think it is great that there is someone near you. I would certainly take the offer from velocitydls and hear his Meridian in your system. But I am with GMood1 on this one. For multi-channel digital sources, movies, etc, the Meridian could very well be a huge step up from your processor. But when you insert a tube stage in the loop in place of the Meridian, be prepared to pass the tissue box over to velocitydls. Any number of models in the $2000-3000 range on the used market like the ARC LS5, LS25, BAT 31SE, BAT 5, Aesthetix Calypso, etc., will bring on a level of musicality to the 2-channel presentation that no ss multi-channel processor can even begin to approach. Try and borrow some cables from your dealer to use for these tests too. The line stage to amp link is critical.

John

Jafox,

All depends on your perspective.

Jafox states

An equalizer? That's a drastic solution. I would only consider this if you're willing to kiss off resolution and collapse the soundstage.

Actually an EQ might be the cheapest and most flexible solution. Used very moderately, I have not found that an EQ destroys sound stage or resolution...although, from a purist perspective, it is preferable if you can do with out it altogether...as I do currently.

The albums/CD/SACD's we purchase are all manufactured sounds anyway; transduced by a microphone, played back on a another type transducer, and adjusted to the sound engineer's tastes on that playback system. The sound has therefore been modified through all kinds of filtering, starting with the venue to the microphone to evenutally the mastering studio... so an EQ or filter, from a non purist perspective, can be simply one more personal tweak or a necessary room adjustment rather than a total corruption to the sound.

Shadorne states:

"Actually an EQ might be the cheapest and most flexible solution."

Who knows, speaker placement might do the trick and this is free.....and no corruption of the signal. I would not be so quick to throw in a bandaid into the electronic chain until I ran out of other options. And I would attend to acoustic treatments long before this.

If you have found that a cheapo EQ has not destroyed soundstage or resolution, that's fine. But I had an older Soundcraftsman 10-band graphic EQ and an SAE 4-band parametric EQ that were fine with the Marantz receiver from 1977, but pretty much destroyed all the musicality of the AGI 511 preamp that followed it. I can only imagine what a disaster these may have been with the musicality brought on by the ARC SP-10 that followed the AGI a few years later.

When you drop in a bunch of cheap ICs and transistors to build up all these active filters, and driven by poorly designed power supplies, you can not expect an "improvement" in much other than altered frequency response. Unfortunately other sonic attributes are severely affected. Perhaps the Cello equalizer would be worthy here, but I suspect this is overkill to what Baffled needs to resolve at the moment.

There is always an obsession with frequency response when people describe what they hear but obviously there's a lot more to it. And for me anyway, retaining the spatial and ambience qualities in the music is a key factor.

And yes, all the transformations you describe are valid. But these are done on million-dollar recording consoles....not with $200 equalizers. And even with all these signal modifications, I can very clearly hear the dimensionality portrayed by musicians on the stage. I might as well throw in the towel and change to a Bose wave radio if I want to correct frequency anomalies by introducing a cheap equalizer.

John

Jafox....Thanks for your suggestions concerning which preamps to check out. I am currently trying my local dealers to see what is available to audition in my system.
velocityvls.... No, I do not know enough to judge who knows what. Just look at my user name! However, at some point I have to look for agreement amoung those who know vastly more than I do. Your opinion represents " the path less traveled" as you stated. That does not mean you are wrong, just that your opinion is not shared by the majority. I am looking for continuity. No disrespect intended. I planned to seperate HT, add a DAC, and add a tube pre before I even started this thread. Since the majority of Goners agree with this approach it is the path I have chosen. If I do not get the results I anticipate, I will accept your gracious offer to listen to your Meridian. I do not think swapping one component will solve the midrange problem all by itself......regardless which component it is. There seems to be a conglomerate of problems. I am surprised the system sounds as good as it does. If I add a DAC, add a tube pre, swap cables, add room treatments, experiment with speaker placement, and then do not achieve the sound I am looking for, then you can bring on the tissues.